He didn't respond because he's smarter than I am. I will actually respond to you.
1: Anyone who claims they can predict NHL playoff series with any amount of certainty should be either a millionaire, is a liar, or is delusional.
2: While I don't like it when stats types pat themselves on the back for something like this, the truth is that having the Kings favored over the Canucks takes a giant leap of faith. However, that was almost certainly the right move, and the results happened to turn out as they did. The Kings were wildly undervalued in the betting markets. Indeed, an 8 will never be favored over a 1 in an NBA series without a completely unforeseen event occurring right before the playoffs (team plane crash, multiple injuries to star players, etc.). A 9-7 team will never be favored over a 14-2 team in the NFL. Picking a 90 win team over an 100 win team in baseball can happen, but baseball's even more luck-based than hockey. Regardless, the stats suggested that the Kings should be favored over the Canucks despite the Kings despite winning 8 fewer games, and they happened to win the series.
3: No one is overstating their case. I cannot predict the future, neither can anyone else, but you seem to have this idea that 'advanced stats' (and that phrase makes my skin crawl) do. They can help to guide people into seeing teams that are either over or under performing.
1. He did claim to predict the result of playoff series, and seemed pretty damned sure of himself, and went so far as to brag that he predicted at Kings upset, but ignoring his misses. I don't know how much money he has, but I doubt he's a millionaire. I suppose he could fall back on saying "well I only gave a percentage chance" of an outcome. But it's the equivalent of saying there's a 70 percent chance that aliens will land on earth tomorrow, and when it doesn't happen, responding, "well, I didn't say it was a certainty". (That is, it's a one time event that you can't reproduce in a controlled environment, like a coin flip, or roulette).
2. I'm not quite clear on what you're saying. You say that it took a giant leap of faith to pick the Kings, but then said the stats suggested the Kings should be the favorite, or are you just saying that Greenberg's stats said the Kings should be the favorite. In any event, had he kept it to saying that the Kings are an undervalued Vegas bet, I really wouldn't care so much.
3. Greenberg is indeed overstating his case in the example I gave, and there are a few others also. And again, if you're going to brag about your individual hits, you ought to at least acknowledge your missses, especially when there were a lot of them.
As an aside, comparing the unlikelihood of upsets in the NHL and MLB playoffs versus basketball is less about "luck" (a term I guess I still don't understand), than it is far fewer variables in the NBA. (Perhaps that's what "luck" means). There are a lot more moving parts in a baseball and hockey, than there are in basketball.
Edited by Daniel, 17 July 2013 - 03:56 PM.
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?